Name the School and the Former Coach in this Quote

[WilsonHog]

"But tradition can prove fragile if not given proper care. _________ has not reached the NCAA Tournament since **** and in that time has left behind the customary detritus of college sports collapse: a deposed coach, NCAA sanctions, off-the-court embarrassments, failing attendance, and, most damning, defeats and anonymity. (A former coach) watched and agonized. 'It took a lot of young men a lot of time and effort to get to the point that we reached. It was tough to see it dismantled.'"   

Which school is being referred to, and who is the former coach who was quoted?

[Hogtropolis™]

Guessing here, Bob Knight and Indiana?

It could very well be Sutton or Nolan referring to Arkansas as well.

[Oliver]

Missouri, Norm Stewart

[dhornjr1]

That would be a quote attributed to Jon Sunvold in a recent Sports Illustrated issue referring to the Missouri Tigers and former head coach Norm Stewart.       

   http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1152487/index.htm

[Hogtropolis™]

Missouri, Norm Stewart

That would be a good guess since Wilson is always pimping Mike (a coach whom I would love to have at Arkansas if thing don't work out with Pel) since he has taken them back to the tourney.  Maybe he could do the same with Arkansas.

[WilsonHog]

It was Missouri and Norm Stewart. Just finished reading the article (a very good one) a few minutes ago.

But some of the same statements could have been made about Arkansas.

Here are another one or two that jumped off the page at me as I read it, hit a little too close to home:

In speaking of Missouri Tim Layden wrote, "They are alive again, both as a cautionary tale about the perils of taking success for granted and a parable of revival."   

And this from the Missouri AD when speaking of the departure of Quin Snyder and the hiring of Mike Anderson: "You can say that the program was in disarray. Our brand had been damaged significantly."

Let me ask this, as a general proposition:

If someone asked you, as a Razorback basketball fan, to describe our "brand," what would you say?

[dhornjr1]

It was Missouri and Norm Stewart. Just finished reading the article (a very good one) a few minutes ago.

But some of the same statements could have been made about Arkansas.

Here are another one or two that jumped off the page at me as I read it, hit a little too close to home:

In speaking of Missouri Tim Layden wrote, "They are alive again, both as a cautionary tale about the perils of taking success for granted and a parable of revival."  

And this from the Missouri AD when speaking of the departure of Quin Snyder and the hiring of Mike Anderson: "You can say that the program was in disarray. Our brand had been damaged significantly."

Let me ask this, as a general proposition:

If someone asked you, as a Razorback basketball fan, to describe our "brand," what would you say?

Honestly, I would say that the Arkansas basketball program has had no brand since 2002. It has been lurching in the dark trying to find an identity for seven years.

[WilsonHog]

Our current brand is that of a program with assenine and unappreciative fans who still b*tch about the winningest coach in the program's history and diss his top assistant who has now taken 2 different programs to the Sweet 16.

Our brand used to be of an overachieving program that was fueled by hard nosed defense first play (Both Sutton and Nolan) and an absolutely rabid and fiercely loyal fanbase.

No way would guys like DonewithDale have been allowed to continue to post in this forum about how Duke is back in their rightful place on top of College Basketball AND put down Nolan and his style of play if this fanbase were anything like base that existed 20 years ago.

Our brand isn't dead, yet. It is in grave peril because even when we win again, our fans will still be pulling for Duke too.

That is so not our tradition.

Do you think our fan base was absolutely loyal and rabid from 1923 to 1974? Winning got them that way, and winning at a pretty high level.

Go back and look at what we did from 1975 through 2001. That's a quarter of a century in which we won 635 games and lost 229 (.735). Add to that one National Championship, three more Final Four Appearances, 10 regular season conference championships, seven conference tournament championships, and being ranked in the Top 20/25 at season's end 18 times.

Now compare that track record of excellence with that from 2002 through 2009.

Our won/loss record during that time was 119-99 (.546), ONE NCAA Tournament win in just three appearances, no conference titles, no conference tournament titles, and no seasons concluded in the Top 20/25.

To put that in perspective, on average we won 10 fewer games a year from 2002 through 2009 than we did from 1975 through 2001. Given the fact that we only play 30 or so, that is a precipitous decline.

This program does not resemble the one that Razorback fans knew for more than 25 years. The fans during that 26 years - and let's face it, unlike football that 26 years pretty much spans Razorback basketball history - were used to watching a winning product take the floor. Used to excellence. Unfortunately, to today's recruits eight or 10 years is ancient history. It is to some of our fans as well. Look how much less many of us are already willing to accept.

Our administration and our fans made a grave error - they took our success for granted. They assumed it was some sort of birthright, one that was easily duplicated by anyone off of the street.   

However, our fans are still coming to BWA on a regular basis to watch some horrific basketball - all because they love the Hogs. Our fans are still shelling out of their back pockets to support the program, because they love the Hogs.

Our tradition - built on the backs of Sutton, Richardson, the Triplets, Joe Kleine, Alvin Robertson, Darrell Walker, U.S. Reed, MayDay, Oliver Miller, Big Nasty, Scotty, Beck, and countless more - is that we win championships. We play at a high level.

[Marshfieldhog]

We actually were in 4 final fours and not 3 during those years.

[WilsonHog]

We actually were in 4 final fours and not 3 during those years.

That's why I said three more...in addition to the one where we won the title.

[HognotinMemphis]

"But tradition can prove fragile if not given proper care. _________ has not reached the NCAA Tournament since **** and in that time has left behind the customary detritus of college sports collapse: a deposed coach, NCAA sanctions, off-the-court embarrassments, failing attendance, and, most damning, defeats and anonymity. (A former coach) watched and agonized. 'It took a lot of young men a lot of time and effort to get to the point that we reached. It was tough to see it dismantled.'"   

Which school is being referred to, and who is the former coach who was quoted?

Most coaches don't use, or even know the definition of, "detritus". Thus, the # of coaches who might have made the statement is very limited. I first think of John Wooden and UCLA. This statement would have been made by Mr. Wooden back in the late 70's or early 80's I guess.

If not a Wooden quote, then maybe it was the old St. Johns' coach, or Hank Iba or someone like that.

[HognotinMemphis]

It was Missouri and Norm Stewart. Just finished reading the article (a very good one) a few minutes ago.

But some of the same statements could have been made about Arkansas.

Here are another one or two that jumped off the page at me as I read it, hit a little too close to home:

In speaking of Missouri Tim Layden wrote, "They are alive again, both as a cautionary tale about the perils of taking success for granted and a parable of revival."   

And this from the Missouri AD when speaking of the departure of Quin Snyder and the hiring of Mike Anderson: "You can say that the program was in disarray. Our brand had been damaged significantly."

Let me ask this, as a general proposition:

If someone asked you, as a Razorback basketball fan, to describe our "brand," what would you say?

We don't have a "brand".

[The Truth]

Do you think our fan base was absolutely loyal and rabid from 1923 to 1974? Winning got them that way, and winning at a pretty high level.

Go back and look at what we did from 1975 through 2001. That's a quarter of a century in which we won 635 games and lost 229 (.735). Add to that one National Championship, three more Final Four Appearances, 10 regular season conference championships, seven conference tournament championships, and being ranked in the Top 20/25 at season's end 18 times.

Now compare that track record of excellence with that from 2002 through 2009.

Our won/loss record during that time was 119-99 (.546), ONE NCAA Tournament win in just three appearances, no conference titles, no conference tournament titles, and no seasons concluded in the Top 20/25.

To put that in perspective, on average we won 10 fewer games a year from 2002 through 2009 than we did from 1975 through 2001. Given the fact that we only play 30 or so, that is a precipitous decline.

This program does not resemble the one that Razorback fans knew for more than 25 years. The fans during that 26 years - and let's face it, unlike football that 26 years pretty much spans Razorback basketball history - were used to watching a winning product take the floor. Used to excellence. Unfortunately, to today's recruits eight or 10 years is ancient history. It is to some of our fans as well. Look how much less many of us are already willing to accept.

Our administration and our fans made a grave error - they took our success for granted. They assumed it was some sort of birthright, one that was easily duplicated by anyone off of the street.   

However, our fans are still coming to BWA on a regular basis to watch some horrific basketball - all because they love the Hogs. Our fans are still shelling out of their back pockets to support the program, because they love the Hogs.

Our tradition - built on the backs of Sutton, Richardson, the Triplets, Joe Kleine, Alvin Robertson, Darrell Walker, U.S. Reed, MayDay, Oliver Miller, Big Nasty, Scotty, Beck, and countless more - is that we win championships. We play at a high level.

Very well done, Wilson.

Over the last ten years, I've lived outside the state, in other basketball-crazed parts of the country, and I have to agree with HoginMemphis on this one: Arkansas has NO profile on the national scene anymore.

Once in a while, some Dukie will remember the 1994 championship, or a Syracuse alum will vaguely recall a heartbreak loss to UA in the 1995 tournament. It warms my heart when those old-timers say things like,"Yeah, I remember those Arkansas teams. They were FIERCE!"

But what people remember most, it seems to me, is how ugly the Richardson firing was. Sometimes something embarrassing, like the Altman debacle, catches national attention for a day or two, but that's about it. The Truth hurts: nobody outside the SEC West has been paying attention to our players or coaches for more than a decade.

That's what seemed so promising about the Pel hire: even though we went through a soap opera before ending up with him, at least he seemed to know the Arkansas tradition, and he wanted to bring it back.

Of course, after two seasons with Pel, including the absolute worst season in modern memory, we're still in a period of "rebuilding" and "waiting until next year." Dear Lord of the heavens and the hardwood, please send us a winner again, one of these days....

[donewithdale]

We don't have a "brand".

Every major program and many mid majors have a brand. 

[Hoggy1]

Every major program and many mid majors have a brand. 

So, lets hear it.

What is Arkansas' brand?

[donewithdale]

So, lets hear it.

What is Arkansas' brand?

Jeebus.  Did you think I wasn't going to give my opinion?  Its not simple.

I could try and sum it up as "Has Been" but I think that is a little harsh. 

Yes, the casual fans don't pay attention to us.  And the younger fans have their teams they follow and are aware of nationally which wouldn't likely to include us. 

But as negative and whining as we like to be about our program, we haven't totally disappeared from the attention from those that follow college basketball and the media.  Proof of how close we are to the spotlight could be seen after the OU and Texas games when the national media jumped on our story.  And our program hasn't been crap this decade.  It hasn't been up to the standards Eddie and Nolan set, but we still have had more NCAAT teams than many NCAA programs and have put out players like Joe, Jannero and Ronnie.  Again, more than many NCAA programs have done. 

The negative part of our brand is definitely the first thing people think of is our 94 NC and then we fired that coach and everything that happened around that from Nolan's press conferences to the lawsuit.  Then we fired Heath after making 2 straight NCAAT's and he was returning most every player from those teams.  Not saying it wasn't justified, its just an outsiders view.  Then the Altman fiasco although I'm not sure outsiders understand he ran from us because of the situation here.  I think nationally, he made himself look bad although that is wrong.  So we have kind of looked more like a circus lately off the court. 

[jamie72921]

Do you think our fan base was absolutely loyal and rabid from 1923 to 1974? Winning got them that way, and winning at a pretty high level.

Go back and look at what we did from 1975 through 2001. That's a quarter of a century in which we won 635 games and lost 229 (.735). Add to that one National Championship, three more Final Four Appearances, 10 regular season conference championships, seven conference tournament championships, and being ranked in the Top 20/25 at season's end 18 times.

Now compare that track record of excellence with that from 2002 through 2009.

Our won/loss record during that time was 119-99 (.546), ONE NCAA Tournament win in just three appearances, no conference titles, no conference tournament titles, and no seasons concluded in the Top 20/25.

To put that in perspective, on average we won 10 fewer games a year from 2002 through 2009 than we did from 1975 through 2001. Given the fact that we only play 30 or so, that is a precipitous decline.

This program does not resemble the one that Razorback fans knew for more than 25 years. The fans during that 26 years - and let's face it, unlike football that 26 years pretty much spans Razorback basketball history - were used to watching a winning product take the floor. Used to excellence. Unfortunately, to today's recruits eight or 10 years is ancient history. It is to some of our fans as well. Look how much less many of us are already willing to accept.

Our administration and our fans made a grave error - they took our success for granted. They assumed it was some sort of birthright, one that was easily duplicated by anyone off of the street.   

However, our fans are still coming to BWA on a regular basis to watch some horrific basketball - all because they love the Hogs. Our fans are still shelling out of their back pockets to support the program, because they love the Hogs.

Our tradition - built on the backs of Sutton, Richardson, the Triplets, Joe Kleine, Alvin Robertson, Darrell Walker, U.S. Reed, MayDay, Oliver Miller, Big Nasty, Scotty, Beck, and countless more - is that we win championships. We play at a high level.

Wilson,

Basketball in general was not embraced at the major sports institutions until the 70's. So the assertion that it was winning that brought about its embrace here isn't exactly right.

Sutton was brought here to build a program where there had been none. That was because of Wooden and UCLA having created some excitement on a national level for NCAA basketball. That was followed by Knight's undefeated season and it has been Katie bar the door ever since.

Winning helped, but it is revisionist history to try and say that we were a "power" under Sutton. He really only had 1 season where we were in the national spot light all year and considered a team to make the final four.

While the triplets did make the final four, it was as a surprise team not as a favored one.

Richardson took this program to another level, but the fanbase was already loyal when he got here. It was beyond loyal actually.

I have been sitting in the bleachers since 78. This transition didn't happen over night.

I would compare it to teams "handling success". Our fans, were not humble enough to handle (appreciate) success when it finally came their way. As a result, we are a school without a brand at all in a positive sense.

Heath was brought in to eradicate the previous brand and return us to the days of Sutton. Pound it, big man oriented ball. This was done to salt the ground that Nolan had tilled. Thank God our fans didn't accept it in the long run.

However, it was done with the blessing of the fanbase at the time and it has significantly hurt our brand. You can read post after post of Donewithdale's disparaging our brand that took us to prominence as "hack and attack", blah, blah, blah. He is supposed to be one of us.

We have no brand, except as a program with a demanding but fickle fanbase.

It was sad to hear our brand being talked about during a Missouri game last night. Our fans are the reason that brand is in Missouri. They want to blame Richardson or Broyles or whoever.

All Richardson did was win a NC here. We FIRED him ONLY 7 seasons later and he had been on the HOT SEAT for the last 3. You call that loyal?

The reason Mike Anderson coaches somewhere else is because of the disloyal attitude of this fanbase.

A lot of you don't like to hear this because the onus is on you in this one. You think you are justified in being brats and are not required to support you team in down periods.

We had a brand at one time and the fans believed they were a big part of that and thrust themselves to the front of the bus. The fans got what they wanted, the problem is, they left as soon as they realized they weren't the reason for the success as Heath struggled and now they still whine and moan about the coach instead of going to games and creating an atmosphere that is second to none in all of college basketball.

[WilsonHog]

Wilson,

Basketball in general was not embraced at the major sports institutions until the 70's. So the assertion that it was winning that brought about its embrace here isn't exactly right.

Sutton was brought here to build a program where there had been none. That was because of Wooden and UCLA having created some excitement on a national level for NCAA basketball. That was followed by Knight's undefeated season and it has been Katie bar the door ever since.

Winning helped, but it is revisionist history to try and say that we were a "power" under Sutton. He really only had 1 season where we were in the national spot light all year and considered a team to make the final four.

While the triplets did make the final four, it was as a surprise team not as a favored one.

Richardson took this program to another level, but the fanbase was already loyal when he got here. It was beyond loyal actually.

I have been sitting in the bleachers since 78. This transition didn't happen over night.

I would compare it to teams "handling success". Our fans, were not humble enough to handle (appreciate) success when it finally came their way. As a result, we are a school without a brand at all in a positive sense.

Heath was brought in to eradicate the previous brand and return us to the days of Sutton. Pound it, big man oriented ball. This was done to salt the ground that Nolan had tilled. Thank God our fans didn't accept it in the long run.

However, it was done with the blessing of the fanbase at the time and it has significantly hurt our brand. You can read post after post of Donewithdale's disparaging our brand that took us to prominence as "hack and attack", blah, blah, blah. He is supposed to be one of us.

We have no brand, except as a program with a demanding but fickle fanbase.

It was sad to hear our brand being talked about during a Missouri game last night. Our fans are the reason that brand is in Missouri. They want to blame Richardson or Broyles or whoever.

All Richardson did was win a NC here. We FIRED him ONLY 7 seasons later and he had been on the HOT SEAT for the last 3. You call that loyal?

The reason Mike Anderson coaches somewhere else is because of the disloyal attitude of this fanbase.

A lot of you don't like to hear this because the onus is on you in this one. You think you are justified in being brats and are not required to support you team in down periods.

We had a brand at one time and the fans believed they were a big part of that and thrust themselves to the front of the bus. The fans got what they wanted, the problem is, they left as soon as they realized they weren't the reason for the success as Heath struggled and now they still whine and moan about the coach instead of going to games and creating an atmosphere that is second to none in all of college basketball.

Outstanding post.

Jamie, I was one of those folks.

I wanted "fundamental" basketball. Big 10 basketball.

I watched Nolan say in 1996 that Arkansas fans were blessed to have him deliver a national championship to UA, and my attitude became "Yeah, we'll show you. You ain't the only coach who can win here."

I was the one proven wrong. 

[hawgsmellgud]

Wilson,

Basketball in general was not embraced at the major sports institutions until the 70's. So the assertion that it was winning that brought about its embrace here isn't exactly right.

Sutton was brought here to build a program where there had been none. That was because of Wooden and UCLA having created some excitement on a national level for NCAA basketball. That was followed by Knight's undefeated season and it has been Katie bar the door ever since.

Winning helped, but it is revisionist history to try and say that we were a "power" under Sutton. He really only had 1 season where we were in the national spot light all year and considered a team to make the final four.

While the triplets did make the final four, it was as a surprise team not as a favored one.

Richardson took this program to another level, but the fanbase was already loyal when he got here. It was beyond loyal actually.

I have been sitting in the bleachers since 78. This transition didn't happen over night.

I would compare it to teams "handling success". Our fans, were not humble enough to handle (appreciate) success when it finally came their way. As a result, we are a school without a brand at all in a positive sense.

Heath was brought in to eradicate the previous brand and return us to the days of Sutton. Pound it, big man oriented ball. This was done to salt the ground that Nolan had tilled. Thank God our fans didn't accept it in the long run.

However, it was done with the blessing of the fanbase at the time and it has significantly hurt our brand. You can read post after post of Donewithdale's disparaging our brand that took us to prominence as "hack and attack", blah, blah, blah. He is supposed to be one of us.

We have no brand, except as a program with a demanding but fickle fanbase.

It was sad to hear our brand being talked about during a Missouri game last night. Our fans are the reason that brand is in Missouri. They want to blame Richardson or Broyles or whoever.

All Richardson did was win a NC here. We FIRED him ONLY 7 seasons later and he had been on the HOT SEAT for the last 3. You call that loyal?

The reason Mike Anderson coaches somewhere else is because of the disloyal attitude of this fanbase.

A lot of you don't like to hear this because the onus is on you in this one. You think you are justified in being brats and are not required to support you team in down periods.

We had a brand at one time and the fans believed they were a big part of that and thrust themselves to the front of the bus. The fans got what they wanted, the problem is, they left as soon as they realized they weren't the reason for the success as Heath struggled and now they still whine and moan about the coach instead of going to games and creating an atmosphere that is second to none in all of college basketball.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!! And since this is a big boy board right now. Some of you IDIOTS that ran off nolan will probably run off Petrino. You all can't just disagree with what is going on you have to go digging around till you run off a coach then sit your fat lazy a$$es around patting yourself on the back like you did the rest of us a favor.  We are not a national powerhouse in any sport but track. We are gonna have down years. You need to be supportive no matter what. I hate to see the hawgs lose but I am not calling for heads. Some of you make me sick. And stop bashing the kids while you are at it.

[donewithdale]

Ignoring another personal attack from jamie, how many more years were we to give Nolan to overcome the NCAA investigation?  Did he earn a lifetime no question contract?  Not trying to be critical of Nolan, but things not included in the brand were the pitiful graduation rates that the national media pointed out(not saying it was totally fair to Nolan), the office skank helping the players cheat and the number of his players that have served time.  If we are going to discuss it, discuss all of it. 

[Fatman]

As far as off the court issues those have not gotten any lesser since Nolan left and as we have seen by the return of the 94 team and some other reunions by far the majority of those players are graduates and producing members of society. I would think we compare favorably with other programs with the exception of Duke and Vandy who have standards that are way above ours. Every program has issues and to some extent I think all bend rules every chance they get. As Nolan used to say you have to feed the monster all the time. I think we as fans want the old days which we may never see again but what will teams like Syracuse, UCONN etc. be like when those coaches either retire or are fired? There is a new generation of young coaches coming in and Pel fits that list nicely. I for one say give him time and I think we will be pleased with the results. I think he will once again be able to "feed the monster"!!

[hoglady]

That was a fine article.
Mike Anderson is getting plenty of love in Mizzou right now and deserves every bit of it. That article was written back the first week of March, just think how they're loving him now.

PS - After reading that article - why in the world would Mike Anderson even consider leaving to come back to Arkansas. They love him there, the school has great fan support and right now the Big 12 is far superior to the SEC in basketball.

[Smokehouse]

It was Missouri and Norm Stewart. Just finished reading the article (a very good one) a few minutes ago.

But some of the same statements could have been made about Arkansas.

Here are another one or two that jumped off the page at me as I read it, hit a little too close to home:

In speaking of Missouri Tim Layden wrote, "They are alive again, both as a cautionary tale about the perils of taking success for granted and a parable of revival."   

And this from the Missouri AD when speaking of the departure of Quin Snyder and the hiring of Mike Anderson: "You can say that the program was in disarray. Our brand had been damaged significantly."

Let me ask this, as a general proposition:

If someone asked you, as a Razorback basketball fan, to describe our "brand," what would you say?

I'd say our brand is pretty tainted at some point. Problem is, a lot of people assume that our brand is just fine and that somehow justifies instant success - especially in the form of recruits/coaches coming here. (Not meaning to get into a Pel discussion here, just speaking in general.) It's been stated by mods on here that Anderson would be interested in the job (therefore, I believe that), but how interested would he be if he had no Arkansas ties at all, and we were trying to sell him on our "brand?" Maybe our brand is better than I think, but I would think a coach would look at Arkansas with more negatives than a lot of other schools, at the moment. On the positive, past experience shows that we can be something great, we just need the coach to build to that. (I'm still hoping that Pel can be that coach, just with obvious serious doubts until we see how next season plays out.)

At some point you have to say "our brand has collapsed, let's rebuild it from the ground up." I think at that point, you approach it like any school with a blossoming interest in basketball and no previous success. Then, when you get back to success, you can think back to greater eras a little more fondly, knowing good times have come again.